Scobleshow Quality (Do We Need Two Camera Shoots?)

by Paul Colligan on November 2, 2006

I’m getting closer and closer to launching my video Podcast project so you can imagine I’m doing my homework, if you will. Reading everything I can these days on video Podcasting.

Don McAllister (of ScreenCastsOnline.com) posted a very interesting critique of ScobleShow in his blog today. Highlights (quotes) include the following:

  • “Or is it that new media shouldn’t worry about production values?“
  • “Would it really hurt to turn this into a two camera shoot? 30 minutes on a fixed frame shot is really not that interesting to watch. Why not a couple of close ups, a couple of inserts, etc.“
  • “People are used to high video production values and we can’t just dismiss that fact.“

ScobleShow is currently a single camera shoot.  It looks, walks, talks and barks like a single camera shoot.  Don thinks is should look better.
Nobody would mistake it for a PBS show.

To me, that is part of the charm.  The lack of edits shows that it, well, wasn’t edited, and in today’s contrived world, it is a pleasant change.
But what about the non-geeks?

Would my wife watch it?  No.  But that’s because of the content, not the editing.  If Coppola directed ScobleShow, my wife wouldn’t care.

I asked her to “visualize” a show with a single camera shoot – and if it would bother her. She “didn’t think so.” But it was concept, not reality.

If money weren’t an issue, would ScobleShow be better with multiple cameras?  Is the single camera the reason he’s getting 10CPM?

Would two cameras double that?  What would?

Does new media require traditional old media standards like multi-camera shoots and higher quality microphones – or is content, like we like to say, truly king?

p.s., I’m planning on a single camera shoot myself so I’m very interested here.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Unlike
  • The seven-second rule is an important factor in the production of GeekBrief.TV. It's not absolute, but the goal is to keep every episode exciting. Scoble could edit to make ScobleShow more dynamic, but I agree with you, Paul. There is something refreshing about Robert's edit-free approach.

    When Luria (aka, Cali) and I got married, she was always getting these minor little injuries. One morning, I noticed the way she turns on a light switch. It's like a snake striking a rat. When I turn on a light, I slowly reach my hand toward the switch, fearing potential,accidental electrocution. Luria flings her hand toward the vicinity of the switch and slaps the wall. She does everything fast.

    What's more important than number of cameras is that you find a format that fits the way you communicate.
  • My video professor (not that bad infomercial) always told me "Follow the seven-second rule!" which is no shot should be longer than 7 seconds in a fixed position, or else you risk losing your audience.

    DiggNation seems to stretch this rule with their vid version, but do a good job mixing in content and screen shots to spice up their cast.

    However, a show like GeekBrief, which is one camera shot per segment with moving graphics and art, gives the impression that the screen is moving, and not fixed. I can watch that all day (Cali is part of the reason, i'm sure).

    Try watching ESPN2's "Mike and Mike in the Morning" on TV from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. EST, and see how they shoot their simulcast, with fixed cameras and switching between them in their radio studio. I think the mix of angles like that from set cameras would be good for a video podcast version of any audio cast.

    But why do video and incur the extra bandwidth and labor costs (and man-hours trying to encode/edit video to boot) when you have the "theater of the mind" that audio-only radio provides?

    Great stuff Paul! Keep it up!
  • I think that today, we are at a point of expectations where the demand for the quality of the video shoots is growing toward more professionalism.
    A single-camera shoot that once had its charm and appeal because of its novelty (and because it was a pioneer in the rich media/new media field) will have to give way to edited, professional quality that carries a key message without wasting a lot of time in the "novel" approach.
    Case in point: videogrunt's video podcasts demonstrate that a few minutes of well-prepared video can get the message across very well (a message that sticks with you and content that is satisfactory to our critical expectations), as well as a mixture of a traditional "talking head" with animation charts, flows, examples, and scenarios to help us visualize the concept. In my humble opinion, a video "talk show" with a single camera POV will get old, as those who will take the time to WATCH and consume the content may feel that there is too much wasted time (in relation to the C. Severson videogrunt deliverable) and also there may come a point where the amateur look-and-feel of the single-camera shoot will lose its appeal because there will be other content competing for our attention that will have shorter, more focused, professional and targeted content in its presentation to us, the video consumers. I think we have to remember that consuming video requires MORE to grab and keep attention than time-shifted audio. My background is in TV and film production, but then...this is only my humble comment. Thanks for bringing this up, Paul.
  • Paul,

    I think this business about single or multi-camera shooting misses the point -

    I agree a 30 minute headshot would get pretty tiresome unless the content was DYNAMITE. - If it was Warren Buffet talking for 30 minutes about how her does it, or something, then maybe.

    But you don't need two cameras to shoot cutaways or details - you just need to remember to shoot them! 'Current affairs' shows have long used 'noddys', where the interviewer is recorded (from over the interviewee's shoulder) nodding thoughtfully at the interviewee's responses (once you begin to notice them it can be pretty funny!)

    So if I'm interviewing someone on Hound TV about their dog, we shoot a bunch of footage of the dog doing stuff (preferably related to the topic of the interview!) that we can drop over the audio - especially if we need to cut the interview around.

    So I guess if I wanted to improve our video podcast there's a lot of things I'd focus on before bringing an additional camera on shoots. Great content, good clear sound, and decent lighting would be way up the list. If we can nail all of those things every episode...
  • The camera HD or not, or how many mean nothing. It's all about the content. Scobles shows are just plain too long and boring. Whomever is shooting there has no skills at all. You can shoot b roll to cut to with a single camera.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: